96 387. To conclude, the Court finds that it has not received sufficient evidence concerning the denial of access to the case file and to photocopies of the file. Moreover, no arguments have been submitted concerning the domestic legislation that regulates the confidentiality of the preliminary inquiry and the alleged “right to contribute” to the investigations. In addition, no explanation has been provided about the specific impact of each denial or delay on the exercise of their rights as the civil party. Consequently, based on all the above, the Tribunal does not have sufficient elements to examine these allegations. * * * 388. In conclusion, the Court accepts the acknowledgement of responsibility for the irregularities committed during the first stage of the investigations. However, the Tribunal has found that, during the second stage, said deficiencies were not entirely rectified. The irregularities in the handling of evidence, the alleged fabrication of guilty parties, the delay in the investigations, the absence of lines of inquiry that took into account the context of violence against women in which the three women were killed, and the inexistence of investigations against public officials for alleged serious negligence, violate the right of access to justice and to effective judicial protection, and the right of the next of kin and of society to know the truth about what happened. In addition, it reveals that the State has failed to comply with ensuring the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty of the three victims by conducting a conscientious and competent investigation. The foregoing allows the Court to conclude that impunity exists in the instant case and that the measures of domestic law adopted have been insufficient to deal with the serious human rights violations that occurred. The State did not prove that it had adopted the necessary norms or implemented the required measures, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention and Article 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, that would have permitted the authorities to conduct an investigation with due diligence. This judicial ineffectiveness when dealing with individual cases of violence against women encourages an environment of impunity that facilitates and promotes the repetition of acts of violence in general and sends a message that violence against women is tolerated and accepted as part of daily life. 389. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate – and, consequently, with its obligation to guarantee – the rights embodied in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and to Article 7(b) and 7(c) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudia Ivette González, Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez and Esmeralda Herrera Monreal. For the same reasons, the State violated the rights of access to justice and to judicial protection, embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and to February 12 and March 11, 2009 (Cf. case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXII, attachment 50, docket II, volume I, folio 11122; volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8478 and 8479; volume XLVIII, attachment 4b, folio 17313; volume XLVIII, folio 17193, and volume XLVIII, folio 17208). In the case of Laura Berenice Ramos copies were requested on February 26, 2002, March 6 and May 3, 2007, and January 29, 2008, and copies were issued on February 26, 2002, and June 1, 2007 (Cf. case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13069; volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8481; volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13129; case file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, volume XXIV, attachment 34, folios 8477; case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXXVI, attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13070, and attachment 50, docket III, volume I, folio 13130.) In the case of Esmeralda Herrera copies were issued on March 11, 2002 (case file of attachments to the answer to the application, volume XXX, attachment 50, folio 13171).